Methods and apparatus for integrating social network metrics and reputation data

ABSTRACT

A method for a computer system includes determining a first social distance for a first user with respect to a second user, determining a second social distance for a third user with respect to the second user, determining a first qualitative rating associated with the first user, determining a second qualitative rating associated with the second user, determining a first trust-metric for the first user in response to the first social distance and the first qualitative rating, determining a second trust-metric for the third user in response to the second social distance and the second qualitative rating, and prioritizing a first listing from the first user over a second listing from the third user for the second user, in response to the first trust-metric and the second trust-metric.

CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

The present invention claims priority to Provisional Application No.60/560,468 filed Apr. 7, 2004 and incorporates it by reference for allpurposes. The present invention also incorporates by reference, for allpurposes Provisional Application No. 60/560,414 filed Apr. 7, 2004 andProvisional Application No. 60/570,911 filed May 12, 2004.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to trust-metric networks. Morespecifically, the present invention relates to prioritizingcommunications via trust-metrics methods and apparatus.

With the wide-spread use of computers, cell phones, pda, and the like,it has become easier for people to communicate with each other. As aresult, more parents call children, more friends chat over IM with otherfriends, more business send e-mail to other businesses, and the like.Unfortunately, this also results in people making and receiving callsfrom “wrong numbers,” businesses making unsolicited calls to people,often at dinner time, businesses and individuals receiving “spam”e-mail, and the like. In the past several years, unsolicitedcommunications have become more burdensome to recipients.

To address such problems, regulations have been passed to attempt toreduce the amount of unwanted communication. For example, telemarketinglaws have been passed to allow consumers to opt-out of cold-call listsvia use of a national telephone registry. As another example, federaland state spam laws have been passed to allow consumers and businessesto request “removal” from unsolicited e-mail mailing lists.

These regulations have only been somewhat effective. For everyregulation, there are work-arounds. For example, as been noted in thepress recently, telemarketing laws do not appear to cover telemarketersoutside the US, and/or telemarketers making VOIP calls. As anotherexample, e-mail spammers with overseas servers are beyond enforcementjurisdiction.

The problem with unwanted communications is now being extended to newforms of communication, including IM-type chat, SMS, data feeds, pop-upweb windows, and the like.

For businesses and individuals who send out “legitimate” communicationsor communications that should be of interest to recipients, there is asimilar problem. More specifically, how to accurately targetcommunications to recipients. Most legitimate businesses, or the likeoften desire not to send out “spam,” as it tends to reduce thebusinesses good will and reputation. Additionally, their money is wastedby paying to send out communications to disinterested parties.

One solution for those who send out communications has been via keywordpurchasing of search results. As is common with search engines such asGoogle, Yahoo, MSN, and the like, any number of “sponsored” ads mayappear as a search result. For example, searching on the term “Vioxx”currently leads to a number of results related to personal injurylawyers. As can be seen, such results are not desired by individualssearching for chemical structure of Vioxx or those interested inclinical research of Vioxx, for example.

Accordingly, in light of the above, what is desired are methods andapparatus that target communications to recipients without thedrawbacks, as discussed above.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to trust-metric networks. Morespecifically, the present invention relates to prioritizingcommunications via trust-metrics methods and apparatus.

In embodiments of the present invention, different ways to restrict thesending of e-mail messages, invitations, chat messages, and the like;and different ways to filter-out and/or prioritize received e-mailmessages, invitations, chat messages, and the like are disclosed. Forexample, as will be described below, users who send e-mail messages mayleverage the relationships of the social network to target users usingspecified criteria. Further, as will be described below, users whoreceive e-mail messages may also leverage the relationships of thesocial network to prioritize, limit or expand the number of e-mailmessages that enter a user's inbox.

According to one aspect of the invention, a method for a computer systemis described. One technique includes determining a first social distancefor a first user with respect to a second user, determining a secondsocial distance for a third user with respect to the second user,determining a first qualitative rating associated with the first user,and determining a second qualitative rating associated with the seconduser. A process also includes determining a first trust-metric for thefirst user in response to the first social distance and the firstqualitative rating, determining a second trust-metric for the third userin response to the second social distance and the second qualitativerating, and prioritizing a first listing from the first user over asecond listing from the third user for the second user, in response tothe first trust-metric and the second trust-metric.

According to another aspect of the invention, a computer system isdescribed. One apparatus includes a memory configured to store aplurality of social distances. A device may also include a processorcoupled to the memory, wherein the processor is configured to determinea first social network metric for a first user with respect to a seconduser in response to the plurality of social relationships, wherein theprocessor is configured to determine a second social network metric fora third user with respect to the second user in response to theplurality of social relationships, wherein the processor is configuredto determine a first rating associated with the first user, wherein theprocessor is configured to determine a second rating associated with thethird user, wherein the processor is configured to prioritize a firstlisting from the first user over a second listing from the third user,in response to the first social network metric, the second socialnetwork metric, the first rating and the second rating.

According to yet another aspect of the invention, a computer programproduct for a computer system including a processor and a memoryincluding a plurality of social relationships is described. The computerprogram product may include code that directs the processor to determinea first social network metric for a first user with respect to a seconduser in response to the plurality of social relationships, code thatdirects the processor to determine a second social network metric for athird user with respect to the second user in response to the pluralityof social relationships, wherein the first social network metric and thesecond social network metric are different, code that directs theprocessor to determine a first rating associated with the first user,and code that directs the processor to determine a second ratingassociated with the third user. The computer program product may alsoinclude code that directs the processor to determine a first combinedmetric for the first user in response to the first social network metricand the first rating, code that directs the processor to determine asecond combined metric for the third user in response to the secondsocial network metric and the second rating, and code that directs theprocessor to prioritize a first listing from the first user over asecond listing from the third user, in response to the first combinedmetric and in response to the second combined metric. The codes mayreside on a tangible media such as a optical media (e.g. CD, DVD),magnetic media (e.g. hard disk), semiconductor media (e.g. RAM), or thelike.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

In order to more fully understand the present invention, reference ismade to the accompanying drawings. Understanding that these drawings arenot to be considered limitations in the scope of the invention, thepresently described embodiments and the presently understood best modeof the invention are described with additional detail through use of theaccompanying drawings in which:

FIG. 1 illustrates a block diagram according to an embodiment of thepresent invention;

FIG. 2 illustrates another block diagram according to an embodiment ofthe present invention;

FIGS. 3A-B illustrate a block diagram of an embodiment of the presentinvention; and

FIGS. 4A-B illustrate another block diagram of an embodiment of thepresent invention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

The following definitions are used in the present application todescribe embodiments of trust-metric networks. That is, networks ofusers (e.g. persons, businesses) that have relationships between themthat specify or imply a measure of trust or bond between users. Thefollowing terms are particularly relevant for social networkembodiments.

Communications—Any type of communication by one user that is viewed orreceived by another user including e-mail, telephone call, instantmessaging, short message service message, IRC message, forum postings,blog postings, invitations.

Home page—Typically the first page presented to a user when the userlogs into the social network. Home pages may or may not be customizedfor each user.

People Card—A profile page associated with a user. A profile pagetypically includes a description of information provided by the user andretrievable by other users/viewers. This may include a name, contactinformation, a list of immediate friends, a list of interests, a list ofaffinity groups the user is a member of, job title, employer, and thelike. In embodiments of the present invention, the amount of informationdisplayed to a user/viewer may vary according to any number ofparameters. Users may, for example specify the amount of userinformation viewable to other users depending upon metrics between theuser and the other users. As examples, the user may provide a firste-mail address to users at a close social distance (defined below) (e.g.1), and a second e-mail address to users farther away; the user mayprovide their full name to users less than a social distance of 2.0, butonly their first name to other users; the user may allow users closerthan a social distance of 3.2, to view a photo album, but the photoalbum is hidden to distant users; and the like.

In the various embodiments, users may have full control of what type ofinformation they provide, according to their relationships in the socialnetwork. In some embodiments, there is a default relationship betweenthe type of information provided about a user with respect to theirrelationships (e.g. social distance). The default relationships may beoverridden by the user.

In various embodiments, users may have one or more profiles, forexample, a profile for an alumni affinity group, a profile for theirbusiness, a profile for close friends. In various embodiments, differentprofiles may include different types of information about the user.

Degrees of Social Separation—A value defined as immediate friends (oracquaintances) of a user being a first degree; friends of the user'simmediate friends being a second degree; etc. Degrees of SocialSeparation may also be computed relative to affinity groups, withmembers of the same affinity group being a first degree; members ofdirectly related affinity groups being a second degree; etc. Degrees ofsocial separation may also refer to a combination of relationships orties between friends and relationships or ties between members ofaffinity groups.

In various embodiments, the degree of social separation betweendifferent users may be different depending upon which metric forseparation distances are used, and depending upon the context in whichthe separation distance is to be used. Additionally, users may havedifferent social separations for different user profiles. For example,two users may have a large social separation when considering personalprofiles, but a small social separation when considering membershipprofiles in affinity groups. In some embodiments, the social distancemay be the shortest distance between a first user and a second user.

Social distance—A numeric value associated with the Degrees of SocialSeparation between a first user and a second user. In embodiments of thepresent invention, a smaller social distance between users represents ahigher “trust” level between the users. For example, in many cases, auser will trust her immediate friends (social distance =1); however, auser will trust a friend of her immediate friend (social distance=2) toa smaller degree; and a user will trust a friend of a friend of herimmediate friend (social distance=3) even less; and so on. In variousembodiments, social distance need not be an integral value and may be afloating point number, for example social distance=4.2, social distance=1.5, etc. In such embodiments, other weighting factors other than meredegree of social separation may be considered, such as “importance” ofthe relationships between the users, the frequency of communicationsbetween the users, the quality of business relationship between theusers, and the like. Other types of “fuzzy” weighting factors mayinclude frequency of communication between users, common posts tosimilar forums, and the like, as will be described below.

In embodiments of the present invention, social distance may besymmetric or asymmetric numbers. As an example of this, a socialdistance between user A and user B may be the same (e.g. 1.4), when bothuser A and user B value their relationship the same. However, if user Avalues the relationship more than user B, the social distance from userB to user A may be smaller (e.g. 1.3) than from user A to user B (e.g.1.8). Some of the factors described above may be used to determineweighting of the relationships, including user satisfaction of priorinteractions, responsiveness to correspondences or queries, performance,common interests, common posting forum, a “frequency” factor, and thelike.

In various embodiments, frequency factors may be based upon the number(or percentage) of contacts between two users. For example, the morefrequently the two users exchange messages, the more heavily weighted isthe frequency factor for the two users. These frequency factors mayresult in non-integer social distances. In various embodiments, anassumption is made that users who communicate frequently may be closerbetter friends.

For example, user A has a social distance of 1.3 from user B, and user Bfrequently communicates with user C, but not user D. Accordingly, in oneembodiment, the computed social distance between user A and user C maybe 1.9 which would be smaller than the social distance between user Aand user D which may be 2.4.

As is described in the above-referenced provisional application, inembodiments of the present invention, the social map of a user may becomputed in real time or near real-time, when the user logs into thesocial network.

In various embodiments, relationship weighting factors may be manuallyentered by the user. For example, user A may rate a concludedtransaction between user A and user B; user B may rate the timeliness ofuser A payment speed; and the like. In alternative embodiments, therelationship weighting factors may automatically be determined. Forexample, the frequency of communications between users may indicate amore valued relationship between the users, accordingly, the socialdistance between users may be shortened. In other examples, the morefrequently two users post messages to an affinity group forum or postmessages on the same thread in the forum, the higher their weightingfactor relative to each other. In such embodiments automaticallyincreasing weighting factors between the users is useful because itinfers that users have shared interests. Other types of inferences basedon user behavior are contemplated in other embodiments.

In other embodiments, users can decrease their social distance to otherusers by their own actions. For example, by quickly responding to e-mailmessages, or other communications, responsiveness weighting factor of auser may be increased; as another example, frequency of checking e-mailmessages or logging into the social network, or the like may increase aresponsiveness factor. As an example, if a user runs a business usingthe social network, by increasing her quality of service, and clientsatisfaction, her reputation factor may increase. Accordingly, socialdistances of users relative to the business in the social network mayautomatically decrease, because of her increased reputation.

Tribe—An affinity group. One example is similar to a Usenet group,having a user moderator, user participants, discussion forums, etc;whereas in other examples, an affinity group need not have a moderator,leader, or the like. In embodiments of the present invention, two usersmay be connected in the social network by being members of the sameaffinity group, even though the two users may otherwise have a largesocial distance between them.

In various embodiments of the present invention, Tribe membership may beexplicitly defined or implicitly defined. Accordingly, Implied Tribesmay be determined. These tribes are groupings of users based on a commoninterest, common activity, or any other type of trait held by two ormore users, without an explicit definition. Examples of implied tribesmay include users who list a common interest, such as “skiing,” userswho view a particular classified listing, restaurant review, or thelike.

In some embodiments of the present invention, members of affinity groupsor groups of users are logically organized as one user (super node). Insuch embodiments, relationships of members are collapsed and imputed tothe affinity group. For example, a clique of three close friends may beconsidered a super node, for sake of simplicity when performingrelationship computations. The relationships of the super node mayinclude the relationships of its underlying users. For example, a skiUtah affinity group may have users A, B, and C, thus the ski Utahaffinity group super node will have the affinity relationships of itsusers A, B, and C. Accordingly, affinity groups can have socialdistances from other affinity groups. In another example, the ski Utahaffinity group will combine the personal relationships of its users A,B, and C. In various embodiments, for this example, the ski Utahaffinity group will list both the ski Utah affinity group relationshipsand the ski Utah affinity group personal relationships side-by-side.These relationships may be represented by a graph, or as desired. Inother embodiments, the relationships of the affinity group are expandedand imputed back to the members of the affinity group.

Tribe Mapping—A process of determining a bottom-up taxonomy for relatedtribes based on common user membership overlap. These maps may becomputed based upon explicit tribe membership data, or implicit tribemembership, as described above. For example, if 75% of the users in abird-watching tribe also view communications on spotting scopes, a tribemapping may closely associate the bird-watching tribe with an impliedspotting-scope tribe. As another example, a “San Francisco Wine Drinker”tribe will most likely have a significant overlap with a “San Francisco”tribe, and a “Wine Drinker” tribe. This mapping can be performedautomatically through algorithms that compute similarity, or manually bymoderators of the tribes, who explicitly state their relationship.Additionally, determining a Tribe Map may be performed on demand.Accordingly, overlap of affinity groups may be explicit or implicit. Therelationship between tribes can then be used as part of a social networkfilter or affinity filter criteria, described further below.

User Network—A subset of all users on the social network. In embodimentsof the present invention, a User Network may be socially limited to aspecified social distance from the user and/or by affinity groups whichthe user is a member of. For example, a user network may include allusers within a social distance (or affinity distance) of 3.5.

In other embodiments, the user network may constrain the type ofinformation available to the user. As examples, users may be constrainedto searching for information (e.g. job posts) from users only withintheir user network; users may be limited to sending e-mails orinvitations, or chatting only with other users in their user network.Many other restrictions can be envisioned to be placed on users basedupon their relationships in the social network.

Social Map—A map of connections to other users on the system. The Socialmap typically includes a shortest path between two users, either viafriendship, affinity group, or the like. The social map is typicallysocially limited to a specified social distance from the user. Inembodiments of the present invention, the limited distance may bespecified by an administrator, the user, or the like.

Social Network—A network of relationships between users (via friendship,affinity, or the like).

People Web—A unified collection of social networks into a completesocial map.

Unifying identities across social networks allows one to traverse thesocial map in a way similar to DNS for network traffic.

FIG. 1 is a block diagram of typical computer system 100 according to anembodiment of the present invention.

In the present embodiment, computer system 100 typically includes amonitor 110, computer 120, a keyboard 130, a user input device 140, anetwork interface 150, and the like.

In the present embodiment, user input device 140 is typically embodiedas a computer mouse, a trackball, a track pad, wireless remote, and thelike. User input device 140 typically allows a user to select objects,icons, text and the like that appear on the monitor 110.

Embodiments of network interface 150 typically include an Ethernet card,a modem (telephone, satellite, cable, ISDN), (asynchronous) digitalsubscriber line (DSL) unit, and the like. Network interface 150 aretypically coupled to a computer network as shown. In other embodiments,network interface 150 may be physically integrated on the motherboard ofcomputer 120, may be a software program, such as soft DSL, or the like.

Computer 120 typically includes familiar computer components such as aprocessor 160, and memory storage devices, such as a random accessmemory (RAM) 170, disk drives 180, and system bus 190 interconnectingthe above components.

In one embodiment, computer 120 is a PC compatible computer having oneor more microprocessors from Intel Corporation, or the like. Further, inthe present embodiment, computer 120 typically includes a UNIX-basedoperating system.

RAM 170 and disk drive 180 are examples of tangible media for storage ofdata, audio/video files, computer programs, user profile card data, usersocial network-related data, social distance computation programs,hierarchal posting data, social network filtering criteria, otherembodiments of the present invention and the like. Other types oftangible media include magnetic storage media such as floppy disks, harddisks, removable hard disks; optical storage media such as CD-ROMS,DVDs, bar codes, holographic; semiconductor memories such as flashmemories, read-only-memories (ROMS), volatile memories; networkedstorage devices; and the like.

In the present embodiment, computer system 100 may also include softwarethat enables communications over a network such as the HTTP, TCP/IP,RTP/RTSP protocols, and the like. In alternative embodiments of thepresent invention, other communications software and transfer protocolsmay also be used, for example IPX, UDP or the like.

FIG. 1 is representative of computer rendering systems capable ofembodying the present invention. It will be readily apparent to one ofordinary skill in the art that many other hardware and softwareconfigurations are suitable for use with the present invention. Forexample, the use of other micro processors are contemplated, such asPentiumIV™ or Itanium™ microprocessors; AthlonXP™ microprocessors fromAdvanced Micro Devices, Inc; PowerPC G4™, G5™ microprocessors fromMotorola, Inc.; and the like. Further, other types of operating systemsare contemplated, such as Windows® operating systems (e.g. WindowsXP®,WindowsNT®, or the like) from Microsoft Corporation, Solaris from SunMicrosystems, LINUX, UNIX, MAC OS from Apple Computer Corporation, andthe like.

FIG. 2 illustrates another block diagram according to an embodiment ofthe present invention. FIG. 2 includes a server 200 coupled to adatabase 210 and coupled to a graphing system 220. A plurality of users230 are coupled to server 200 via a network 240, such as the Internet.

In the present embodiments, users 230 may be any conventional accessdevice, such as a computer, a web-enabled telephone, a personal digitalassistant, or the like. In operation, users 230 log into server 200 andthen makes one or more requests for data. The data that is returned istypically displayed back to user.

In various embodiments, server 200 may be embodied, as described above,and include one or more servers (e.g. server cluster) that respond torequests from users 230. For example, multiple servers may be used inembodiments where server performance is important, e.g. East Coastserver for client requests from Boston, Midwest server for clientrequests from Chicago, and the like. Server 200 may be configured asillustrated in FIG. 1, above.

Database 210 may be any conventional database such as powered by MySQL,Oracle, Sybase, or the like. In other embodiments, database 210 may beany other data source such as an LDAP server, or the like. In thepresent embodiment, database 210 is configured to store and maintainuser data, to store and maintain relationship data between the users,and configured to make changes to relationship data between users, amongother functions. As illustrated, database 210 may be coupled to server200 and to graphing system 220 to send and receive respective data, aswill be described below.

In various embodiments, graphing system 220 is a stand-alone computersystem configured to receive data from server 200, and configured tostore and maintain relationship data between the users. Additionally, invarious embodiments, graphing system 220 is configured to determine andprovide requested relationship data to server 200. In variousembodiments, graphing system 220 may be integrated as a part of server200, or the like.

In various embodiments, graphing system 220 may be a conventionalcomputer system, as described above. In one embodiment, graphing system220 maintains in the relationship data of users (adjacency information)in RAM. In other embodiments of the present invention, graphing system220 may store a portion of the relationship data of users in RAM. Theother portions of the relationship data of users may be stored onmagnetic disk or other media, on database 210, or the like. In suchembodiments, elements of the relationship data of users can be loadedinto a most recently used (MRU) queue.

In the present embodiment, graphing system 220 computes socialrelationships in real time by minimizing lookup time of requiredinformation. For example, lookup operations such as: who are the directfriends of person A?, who are the members of tribe B?, etc, arepreformed in constant or near constant time. Additionally, graphingsystem 220 stores relationship data for users in RAM in a way thatallows explicit control over memory allocation. In some embodiments ofthe present invention, it is expected that graphing system 220 will beable to compute social distance computations on a social network of upto 20 million users, within 20 milliseconds or less.

In embodiments of the present invention, graphing system 220 may includea number (e.g. cluster) of individual systems. In various embodiments,the individual systems may store unique portions of the relationshipdata of users; the individual systems may store in parallel the sameportions (or the entire) relationship data of users; or the like. Anytraditional data clustering technique may be used to implement graphingsystem 220 in embodiments of the present invention.

Additionally, in embodiments, graphing system 220 determines thespecific relationships (e.g. social distance queries) primarily in RAM.With such a configuration, the performance of graphing system 220 hasproven superior than disk-based computation systems such as conventionaldatabases.

In various embodiments, graphing system 220 includes four softwarecomponents including two C++ components, and two Java components. Inother embodiments, other architectures are envisioned. The C++components includes a portion that solves social distance queries usingthe RAM, utilizing a memory efficient graph implementation, as will bediscussed below. Additionally, the C++ components includes a daemonprocess that reads commands and write results to a socket (or othertransport medium). By having graphing system 220 respond to relationshipqueries via a socket, different implementations of the server interface,may be easily used, without touching the C++ components.

In various embodiments, the server interface, i.e. java components,includes a java class that provides APIs to requesting servers, such asserver 200. The API's serve as the interface layer to the C++components. Additionally, the java components includes an interfacelayer that sends requests to the socket and waits for relationship dataon the socket.

In implementation, graphing system 220 may be multithreaded and thus cansupport simultaneous requests from server 200. Additionally, in caseswhere server 200 includes one or more servers for increasing scale,standard clustering techniques such as data replication can be used tosupport simultaneous requests from one or more servers.

In various embodiments, many different types of relationship data can bedetermined by database 210 and graphing system 220 including, a shortestpath between user A and user B (e.g. SOCIAL_DISTANCE (A,B)), typically afloating point value reflecting the distance from user A to B; shortestpaths between user A and user B, for example through user C and user D,or through user E and user F (returned as an array of paths); what usersare within or less than N degrees from user A (less than a N socialdistance); who is the most connected user in the social network, and thelike. Many other types of information are reportable within otherembodiments of the present invention. In embodiments of the presentinvention, database 210 and graphing system 220 may communicate witheach other via custom function calls from database 210.

The relationship determined may be filtered and sorted in any number ofconventional ways based upon various parameters. Additionally, database210 and graphing system 220 are enabled to received up-datedrelationship data, such as adding a new user/friendship relationship orremoving a friendship relationship, and to recompute the relationshipdata, and the like.

FIGS. 3A-B illustrate a flow chart according to an embodiment of thepresent invention. More specifically, FIGS. 3A-B illustrate a process ofrestricting or expand receiving communications, based on trust-basedmetrics.

Initially, any number of users (e.g. senders) log into thesocial-network server 200, step 300. Such operations may be done withconventional user name/password combination, or any other level ofsecurity. As an option, the sender specify one or more communications toone or more recipients, step 310. For example, in various embodiments, afirst user may send an e-mail to one or more recipients, a second usermay send a chat message to a recipients, a third user may make aninternet call to a recipient, and the like. In various embodiments, acommunication server, such as an e-mail server is separate from server200 and used to process and/or store the communications. In variousembodiments, as stated above, the communications may take various forms,such as e-mail messages, IM, SMS, Blog posts, VOIP calls, and the like.In other embodiments, the senders post listings to a common web site,such as e-bay, Amazon, Thomas Register, or the like. Thecommunications/posts are associated with the senders, step 320. Invarious embodiments, various memory pointers may be used to associatethe sender with the communication.

In various embodiments, the user must belong to the social network inorder to receive the communications. This is desirable in order toexpand the social network and to provide the values for the socialnetworking filtering (e.g. social distance) and any additional filteringcriteria for the communications (e.g. geographic location, subjectmatter). In other embodiments, the social network data is made availablevia other portals or channels. For example, the social network data maybe used by sites, such as e-bay.com.

Subsequently, a user (e.g. recipient) logs into the social-networkserver 200, step 330. In response, in one embodiment, server 200,database 210 and graphing system 220, dynamically performs a socialnetwork calculation, and determines a social map for the recipient, step340. As discussed above, in various embodiments, the social map mayinclude a limited number of users, typically users who are within apre-determined social distance from the recipient. For example, thepre-determined social distance may be a number, such as 3.5, 2.0, or thelike. In another embodiment, the social map may include a fixed numberof users, such as 50 of the closest (via social distance) users. Instill other embodiments, combinations of the above may be used. Forexample, a displayed list may include users within a social distance of1.5 but limited to the first 20 or the closest 20. As discussed in thereferenced application above, this calculation can be performed inreal-time.

In the various embodiments, the potential recipient is automaticallypresented with their home page, step 350. The home page may include aset or sub-set of users (e.g. friends) in the social map, theon-line/off-line status of those friends, and the like. Otheroptions/features on their home page may include adding/deleting membersto a social network, adding/deleting affinity group memberships,changing the user's profile card, viewing recommendations,sending/receiving e-mail messages, and the like. In other embodiments,if the social network is accessed via other portal, the social networkhome page may not be presented.

In various embodiments, the social map determined in step 340 mayinclude users at a greater social distance than is presented to the userin step 340. For example, the social map may be determined to socialdistance of 8, however, on the user's home page, friends at a socialdistance of 2 or less are only displayed. As another example, the socialmap may include the 100 closest friends, however, on the user's homepage, only the top 10 friends (i.e. 10 users with the smallest socialdistance) are displayed.

In one embodiment of the present invention, one option allows thereceiver to specify a trust-network metric (e.g. social distance,affinity group) filter for communications, step 350. In otherembodiments, the trust-metric filter is pre-determined by the system,and may be overridden by the recipient. As will be discussed below, invarious embodiments, a set social distance may be used to limitcommunications to the receiver. Additionally, another option allows thereceiver to specify any number of additional filters on communications,step 360. As will be described further below, these filters may also beused to limit communications to the receiver. In various embodiments,the user may be prompted for a selection of one or more selections in ahierarchy as a filter. For example, the user may navigate towork-related communications sections, “Personal” communications listingsections, and the like.

In various embodiments of the present invention, in response to thecommunications requests, server 200 blocks or prioritizes thecommunications requests, step 370. For example, if an e-mail is from auser not within the recipients social map, the e-mail is blocked, is putinto a special e-mail folder (e.g. “potential spam” folder), is placedat the bottom of the e-mail inbox, or the like. Further, if an e-mail isfrom a user in the recipients social map, the e-mail may be placed atthe top of the e-mail inbox.

In other embodiments of the present invention, server 200 mayfilter/prioritize communications based upon specified affinity groups.As an example, a recipient may specify receiving IM messages from usersonly within a particular affinity group, for example from users in a“new parent ” affinity group, but not receiving communications fromusers in an “AARP” affinity group, for example. In some cases, theaffinity groups may be groups the user is a member of, however, in othercases, the user need not be a member of the affinity groups to. In someembodiments, affinity groups may be organized in a hierarchy,accordingly, the social distance may be generated that specifies how farapart two affinity groups are. For example, a top-level affinity groupmay be “raising children” group and two lower-level affinity groups maybe “teens,” and “toddlers.” If the user specifies that she can receivecommunications from the “raising children” group members, she may alsoreceive e-mail messages from “teen” group and “toddler” group members.

In other embodiments, communications from users not within in therecipient's map may be promoted; communications from users greater thana determined social distance (e.g. 2) away are promoted; communicationsfrom users further away from a predetermined number (e.g. 500) ofclosest users are promoted, and the like. Such embodiments are believeduseful if the user wants to expand their social network, hear from longlost friends, draw from “outside the box,” or the like.

In various embodiments, the additional filtering criteria from step 360may also be used to filter/prioritize communications to the user, step380. Many types of limitations may be used to filter-out communications,for example, geographic area of the sender, age of the sender, whetherthe sender is an individual or a group (e.g. company), and the like. Inlight of the present patent disclosure, it is believed that one ofordinary skill in the art would recognize that many different criteriamay be used as filters in embodiments of the present invention.

In response to the trust-metric filters, and additional filteringcriteria, communications are provided to the recipient, step 390. As aresult, communications that are relevant to the recipient (via filters)and from “trust-worthy” sources (e.g. users with low social distancefrom the user) are provided. Further, communications that are lessrelevant to the recipient (filtered-out) from less known sources (e.g.users with higher social distance from the recipient) are not providedto the recipient.

In another embodiment, incoming communications are automaticallyprioritized and placed into a series of directories by the system. Inthis embodiment, each directory may be associated with one or moresocial distance from the user. For example, one directory includescommunications (e.g. e-mails) from closer friends (social distance=1-2);one directory includes communications (e.g. e-mails) from intermediatefriends (e.g. friends of closer friends, social distance=2-4); and thelike. In such embodiments, a recipient can easily select thecommunications directory she is most comfortable with to view. In oneexample, communications (e.g. e-mails) from closer friends mayautomatically be provided to the recipient. Additionally, if the userwants to go beyond this group, the user may select one or moredirectories that store communications (e.g. e-mails) for intermediatefriends, or further, step 400. In response, communications (e.g.e-mails) of such users are then provided, step 410.

In other embodiments, communications are automatically placed intoanother series of directories by the system based upon affinity groupmembership. Accordingly, a recipient can select directories of affinitygroups the user is a member of, or an affinity group the user is notmember of, but may be relevant. In various embodiments, affinity groupsmay have a hierarchal organization, accordingly, particular affinitygroups may be more closely related to each other than two randomlyselected affinity groups. In such cases, the affinity groups that aremore closely related to the recipient's affinity group may beprioritized ahead of other groups when presented to the user.

In various embodiments of the present invention, fees could be chargedfor access to certain communications. For example, certain affinitygroups may charge users to be sent weekly newsletters, or the like. Asanother example, an affinity group may be similar to a “matchmakingclub” and have fees for members to receive information of potentialcandidates. In another example, the affinity group may be a company, andsubscription fees are required to receive User's Group information on aproduct, and the like. In such cases, such communications may be placedin a folder that is indicated as a “paid for” communications, orprioritized for the recipient, or the like. Fees may also be requiredfor being sent communications regarding goods, services, jobs, auctions,or the like.

The inventors of the present invention believe this combination ofcommunications in combination with social network filtering enhances therelevance of communications reaching the recipient. For example,unsolicited communications (e.g. e-mail, phone call) from senders a highsocial distance away are lowly ranked or deleted because of the highchance these communications may be spam.

FIGS. 4A-B illustrate a flow chart according to an embodiment of thepresent invention. More specifically, FIGS. 4A-B illustrate a process ofa communication sender restricting the sending of communications.

In embodiments of the present invention, different ways to restrict thesending of communications, such as e-mail messages, invitations, chatmessages, are disclosed.

Initially, a user logs into the social-network server 200, step 500.Such operations may be done with conventional user name/passwordcombination, or any other level of security. As an option to the user(individual, business, group, etc.), the user sends one or morecommunications, step 510. In various embodiments, an e-mail server, orthe like is separate from server 200 and is used to store thecommunications. In various embodiments, the communications includee-mails, SMS messages, IM messages, Blog posts, and the like. In someembodiments of the present invention, one or more recipients may betargeted, and in other embodiments, (e.g. updating of web pages, Blogposts) subscribers to RSS feeds, for example are targeted.

In some embodiments of the present invention, users who sendcommunications to groups of recipients may also specify criteria for thecommunication based upon relationships defined in the social network,step 520. In one embodiment, the sender specifies a maximum socialdistance away (from the user) where the communication can be sent.Accordingly, users who are within the maximum social distance mayreceive the communication, whereas users who are outside the maximumsocial distance are not sent the communication. For example, a user mayspecify that an e-mail invitation for a party will be available only tousers that have a social distance of two or less.

In other embodiments of the present invention, senders may specify thatcommunications are only sent to members of a specified tribe or affinitygroup or closely related one. For example, a user may specify that ane-mail invitation for a bass fishing tournament will be available tousers in a “bass fishing” tribe, and possibly a “fly fishing” tribe.These embodiments are believed beneficial to the sender, because bylimiting the reach of the communication, it is less likely that thesender will be accused of “spamming” others in the social network.

In embodiments of the present invention, providing limitations on theability of communications (e.g. e-mail messages) to be initiated orforwarded to users greater than a specified social distance away may beparticularly useful in limiting the amount of e-mail worms or virusesthat get transmitted across the web. With embodiments of the presentinvention, if social distance is used as a metric, a certain set ofe-mail messages cannot be sent as the social distance may be too faraway.

In other embodiments of the present invention, the sender may specifyother types of limitations may be also used to limit or target acommunication, for example, geographic area (e.g. San Francisco BayArea, Boston Area, 50 miles from Chicago), age, demographic (e.g. male,female, income, home owner), family status (e.g. married, divorced,married with children), and the like, step 530. In light of the presentpatent disclosure, it is believed that one of ordinary skill in the artwould recognize that many different types of criteria may be applied toembodiments of the present invention.

In other embodiments, the sender may, in addition, or alternatively toabove, specify that communications are sent to users having a socialdistance further away from a specific distance. For example, a corporateuser may want to get “fresh blood” into the organization, and thus sende-mail messages to users greater than a social distance of 2 away; andat the same time, a recipient may be looking for jobs outside theirindustry, thus only desire to receive e-mail messages about jobs fromsenders greater than a social distance of 3 away, or the like. Othersimilar situations are imaginable with respect to other types oflimitations, such as geography, affinity group, and the like.

In various embodiments, fees may be charged to the sender based uponsocial distance, affinity group, or the like. For example, for free, thesender may make send the communication to users a specified socialdistance of one away (i.e. immediate friends), members of the sameaffinity group as the user, users within a particular geographic area,and the like. If the user is willing to pay a fee, the user may makesend a communication to a users outside the “free” posting area. Forexample, the communication may be sent to users within a social distanceof three, but the communication may be sent to users within a socialdistance of up to six for a fee. In another example, for a fee, thecommunication may be available to users, in a wider geographic area, toa larger number of related-affinity groups, and the like.

In additional embodiments, it is contemplated that recipients maythemselves recommend or forward communications to other users. Forexample, a first user may view an e-mail about a job and forward thee-mail to a second user who may be looking for a job. The second usermay also forward the e-mail to another user, and so on. In embodimentsof the present invention, limits may be applied to whom a user mayforward communications to, to avoid “spam” problems with repeated andmass forwarding of communications. As an example, recipients of e-mailmessages may be limited to forwarding them only to users of a socialdistance of one, two or the like away.

In addition, in some embodiments, senders may also limit the forwardingof their communications to other users. For example, a sender mayspecify that a confidential e-mail message cannot be sent to usershaving a social distance greater than 1, accordingly recipients of theconfidential e-mail may not forward the e-mail to other recipients. Froma receiving end, the recipients who received of communications maydecide to filter-out forwarded or recommended communications from usersgreater than a specified social distance away (e.g. three or greater.)

In other embodiments, a poster may compensate or pay fees for recipientsto forward communications to other users. For example, a corporate“head-hunter” may send an e-mail including a job listing, and a firstrecipient may view the e-mail and forward it to a second recipient. Ifthe second user is fit for the job and hired, the head-hunter may pay areferral fee to B. This process may be termed “Pay It Forward” enablesbounties to be paid to participants in the communication chain leadingto fulfillment. Embodiments may be paid for a product being sold, aperson being hired, an apartment being rented, or the like. In otherembodiments, simply forwarding the communication to another user itselfmay trigger some sort of compensation. Types of compensation can includemonetary payment, user access to protected content (e.g. articles,music, film clips), coupons, membership, or the like.

In various embodiments of the present invention, the communication alongwith the desired social network filtering criteria, as well asadditional filtering criteria are stored and associated with the poster,step 540.

In various embodiments, when a subsequent user is on-line, step 550, thesystem determines when the social network criteria, the filteringcriteria, and/or the forwarding limitations of the communication senderare initially satisfied, step 560. This may also include a numericalnumber, such as the closest X number of users, e.g. 5,000 most relevant.recipients, etc. If not, the communication is not provided to thesubsequent user, step 590.

In various embodiments, the system then determines whether thecommunication meets the recipients filtering criteria, as was describedabove, step 570. If so, the communication may be provided to therecipient, step 580. As can be seen, criteria of the sender and receivershould be satisfied before the communication occurs. As examples, aposter may send an e-mail about post a job listing for a programmer tousers within a social distance of three, with a forwarding maximumsocial distance of five. Further, a job hunter may look for programmingjobs from senders a maximum social distance of two away. If a socialdistance from the sender to the recipient is four, the recipient may notsee the e-mail job listing unless it is forwarded to her; if the socialdistance from the recipient to the sender is three, the receiver may notsee the e-mail job listing; if the social distance from the sender tothe recipient is three, and the social distance from the recipient tothe poster is two, the recipient may see the job listing; and the like.

In the illustrated example, if the recipient's criteria are not met, thecommunication is not provided to the recipient, step 600. In some cases,the communication may, instead, be placed in a lower priority folder.The recipient may subsequently request to view the communication at alater time.

In additional embodiments, communications can be specifically targetedby senders to recipients or affinity groups based upon demographiccriteria, affinity data, and the like. Similarly, recipients canexplicitly state the types of specific communications they are receptiveto receiving, by specifying an interest, joining a group or affinitygroup relevant to the specific advertisements. The combination of thesefeatures allows advertisers to target highly relevant communications toreceptive recipients, such as e-mail advertisements, or the like.

In embodiments of the present invention, combining communicationtargeting with “Tribe Mapping,” discussed above, it is believed thatsenders can more easily determine potentially interested recipients. Invarious embodiments, a sender may identify a target tribe based uponexplicitly identified or implicitly determined interests of the users; asender may identify a target based upon the Tribe Mapping; a sender mayidentify key words and in returned, have a tribe identified; or thelike. In some embodiments of the present invention, a issue arises,however, if a sender is trying to send e-mail to 10,000 wineenthusiasts, however the Wine Tribe includes only 1,000 users. In thiscase, by finding closely related tribes to the Wine Tribe, based uponuser membership, the remaining 9,000 recipients may be identified. Forexample, closely related tribes could include a “Gourmet Food Tribe,”“Resort Living Tribe,” and the like. Although not all members of therelated tribes may be interested in wine, by providing such e-mailmessages to members of related tribe members in the Tribe Mapping isbelieved to give better results than spamming random members. In variousembodiments, the sender of the communication (e.g. e-mail message) willtypically have a social distance computed with regards to potentialrecipients. Accordingly, it is typically possible to specify a specificnumber of closest users, via social distance, e.g. 1,000 closest, 5,000closest, 9,874 closest users, and the like. In some cases, the closestusers are within a single affinity group.

In additional embodiments of the present invention, additional factorsmay be used, in step 380 and 530, above. In various embodiments,“reliability,” “feedback,” “reputation,” “star rating” factors, or thelike may be specified. These reliability factors may be based on anynumber of criteria, such as reliability in responding to questions, indelivery of goods or services, in quality of services, in timeliness ofresponse, in satisfaction, in length of membership, amount of time inbusiness, forum participation and behavior, and the like. Thesereliability factors, alone, are often not trusted by recipients. Theinventors believe this is because recipients do not know whether theopinions are trustworthy or not (i.e. ratings by shills). Accordingly,the addition of social network criteria help provide the recipient witha trust-metric to enable them to make more informed decisions. Becauseeach recipient has their own unique social map, the social distances ofthe raters of a sender tend to be unique.

In various embodiments, the trust-metric (e.g. social distance) may be avalue that is independently presented to the recipient, along with therating value. For example, a recipient may see e-mail messages from afirst sender at a social distance of 3 with a rating of 4/5 and a secondsender at a social distance of 4 with a rating of 5/5. In otherembodiments, the trust-metric value and the rating value may be combinedin any number of ways to provide a single value. For example, the singlevalue may be a simple average of the rating and trust-metric value, aweighted combination, a non-linear combination, or the like. In theexample above, the combined value for the first sender may be 3, and thecombined value for the second value may also be 3.

As examples of embodiments of the present invention, an implementationof the above social networking overlay could be implemented inconjunction with data from e-commerce sites, such as an auction sitesuch as ebay.com, amazon.com, or the like. In such embodiments,reputations or rating of the buyers and sellers can be adjudged basedupon feedback from prior sellers and buyers, respectively, and now alsobased upon 1) social distance of the raters and/or 2) social distance ofthe buyer or seller in question. As examples of the first case, arecipient may be inclined to view listings from a small, high-ratedseller with raters at a social distance of 2.1 away before listings froma higher-rated seller with raters at a social distance of 6.4 away; orthe like. As examples of the second case, a first sender is at a socialdistance of 2 from a recipient, and a second sender is at a socialdistance of 3 from a recipient. If the first sender has a 4 star rating,and the second sender has a 3 star rating, the first sender will beranked ahead of the second sender; if the first sender has a 2 starrating, and the second sender has a 4 star rating, the second sender maybe ranked ahead of the first seller; and if the first sender has a 3star rating, and the second sender has a 3 star rating, the first sendermay be ranked ahead of the second sender; or the like. Then, based uponthe rankings, listings from the senders can be prioritized.

As another example, for a site such as e-bay, using embodiments of thepresent invention, sellers selling a product may be ranked based uponunique social distance from the seller to the potential buyer, may beranked based upon combination of unique social distance from the sellerto the buyer and feedback quality (e.g. 98% positive rating), may beranked based upon combination of unique social distance from the sellerand the buyer and feedback quantity (e.g. power seller), and the like.In various embodiments, these parameters may be combined into a singlenumber, or these parameters may be identified separately for the buyer.Conversely, a seller may be presented with a list of buyers that areprioritized based not only upon qualitative and quantitative ratings butalso unique social distance from the buyers to the sellers. For example,a seller may receive different bids from different buyers for an item,and choose to sell to a buyer that bids less than other buyers, but hasa closer social distance to the seller. Many other scenarios are alsoenvisioned.

In various embodiments of the present invention, a user's profile can beaugmented by data that is available on other social networks andportals. Reliability or trust of the user can thus be obtained from anumber of domains. For example, a user may have an excellent forumrating because of the user's timeliness and usefulness of postings. Thisinformation can be used in the context of communications. For example, apotential buyer may base their buying decision on the user's forumreputation, as a proxy for the classified listing reputation. Theinventors believe this solution solves a problem with sender ratings onsites such as e-Bay, because new senders with little transaction historyare at a disadvantage compared to e-Bay volume sellers (e.g.businesses.) Accordingly, using a proxy for trustworthiness provides amore level playing-field for individuals to penetrate such “power law”reputation networks (where power becomes more concentrated in the firstmovers).

In various embodiments, data from other domains may be imported orlinked to the user's profile. As an example, a user's e-Bay sellerrating may be made available on her profile by either importing thatvalue, or by an external link to such content. This aggregation ofsocial information from a collection of separate locations can giveothers a better idea of the user's social standing. For example, thedata may include tribe membership, interests, blog posts, forum ratings,seller ratings, buyer ratings, philanthropic donations, memberships inexternal organizations (e.g. WWF, IEEE, Mensa), and other externalcontent (e.g. Amazon Wishlist). In various embodiments, a reputationrating of a sender of a communication may thus be determined upon theuser's, e-bay seller rating, Amazon seller rating, e-pinions forumreputation, and the like.

In embodiments of the present invention, another novel concept is thatthe relationship data of users stored in the social network may beexported to many different applications, such as genealogy, organizationhistory, leadership charts, or the like. Further, the user relationshipdata may also be exported to different social networks, or the like. Inother embodiments of the present invention, the user relational data maybe imported into social networks, such as customer lists, or otherapplication or service that stores identity information. In general, theuser's profile and social relationships can be distilled into a flatfile outside of the social network, portal, or the like, that can be“carried around” by the user and can be controlled by the user.Additionally, embodiments allow the user to unify aspects of the user'sidentity in one or more files in a single location, whereas previously,the user's identity was distributed in multiple locations, such asyahoo!, eBay, or the like. In one embodiment, the user's profile isdescribed in a format termed FOAF (Friend of a Friend), a flat XMLdocument, including RDF descriptions of ontologies.

In various embodiments, users may automatically be sent invitations toregister in the social network via conventional e-mail. These e-mailmessages allow a user to simply register via a reply e-mail, unlikecurrent web-based registration schemes. In the reply e-mail messages,users may provide their own social map by simply entering names and/ore-mail address of their friends. Again, in contrast to conventionalsystems where users must register in a web site via any number of forms,embodiments allow users to simply register via e-mail messages.

In other embodiments of the present invention, other types of data otherthan communications or posts may be restricted or prioritized based upontrust-metric criteria. In one example, the social networking factorscould be implemented in conjunction with search engines such as Yahoo,Google, MSN search, and the like. In some embodiments, clicks on linksby previous users may be combined with the trust-metric values todetermine a priority for search results. For example, a first user is amember of an affinity group such as an “toy airplane affinity group,”and a second user is a member of a “fashion affinity group.” If thefirst user searches for the terms “model” and “photography,” the searchengine may initially identify a number of search result links.Subsequently, based upon selected search result links of other membersin the same “toy airplane affinity group,” the search engine willpromote links about “hobby supplies,” “macro photography,” “aviation”and the like, for the first user. In contrast, if the second usersearches for the same terms “model” and “photography,” the search enginemay again identify the same number of search result links.

However, based upon selected search result links of other members in the“fashion affinity group,” the search engine may promote links about“photographic supplies,” “fashion models,” “weight loss supplements” andthe like, for the second user.

As another example, a search engine may prioritize results based uponprior searches performed by users closer than a determined distance awayfrom the user. For example, a college student may search for “airlines”and “hotels.” In such embodiments, the search engine may identifypotential links to return to the student, then, based upon searchesperformed by users less than a social distance of two away, for example,the college student's results may be prioritized. If many of thestudent's friends are planning trips to Ft. Lauderdale, the searchresults may prioritize links describing “Spring Break packages toFlorida,” “Miami nightlife guides” “tanning salons” and the like.

In light of the present disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the artwill recognize that many other types of collaborative filteringtechniques may be advantageously adapted with the trust-metric factorsdescribed above.

In other embodiments of the present invention, users need not log intothe social network, but instead may receive communications throughsubscriptions to listing feeds via RSS, or the like. Other methods forsyndication of listings to other networks and providers arecontemplated, for example cell phone networks, PDA and for pagernetworks, and the like. As other examples, embodiments may be applied topeer to peer communications where feeds, subscriptions, and queries flowthrough a chat or P2P clients without a portal in the middle. In suchembodiments, users may specify one or more subscriptions that include apersistent search via RSS, subscriptions that monitor one or morechannels for any data, or the like. In response, when the one or morefeeds include data satisfying the search, or when data is posted on thechannel, the respective data is provided to the user. For example, auser may specify a search such as, “apartments in Mountain View” whichsearches a real-estate feed, or may specify monitoring a channel titled“Mountain View apartments.”

Generally, embodiments allow for portal-less communication and commercetransactions from device to device, or peer to peer, without having tovisit an intervening portal. In such embodiments, users may postcommunications to the “network of listening devices” and users may viewcommunications with a “listening device” both without central portal(e.g. Craigslist.org, ebay.com).

In various embodiments of the present invention, any combination of theabove techniques is contemplated. Further, in embodiments, the resultsdisplayed to the user may be non-prioritized, or may be prioritizedbased upon the filtering criteria. For example, communications maysimultaneously be presented to a user/recipient via folders or viaposition in a hierarchy listing based upon social distance, based uponaffinity, reliability, and the like. In various embodiments, when asocial networking filter is applied to user recommendations (forexample, users who are rating a service provider, such as a plumber),recommendations from a user's social network can be highlighted to theuser. For example, if several friends have recommended the same plumber,that plumber may appear as a “recommendation from my social network” tothe user. As another example, social network metrics, such as a socialdistance, and a poster rating may be used with or without usingadditional filtering criteria, for both senders and potential buyers. Asanother example, in various embodiments, prioritization ofcommunications may be based upon the type of poster. Accordingly, any ofthe embodiments described herein are not exclusive of each other.

In additional embodiments, identity of the poster/sender may have aneffect on the prioritization of the communication. For example, ingeneral, anonymous senders may have a lower priority than a groupsenders (e.g. business, affinity group), and a group sender may have alower priority than an individual sender. Thus for example, if a userreceives job listing e-mails three different senders, if the socialdistances are the same, the e-mail of the individual sender should behigher priority than the e-mail of the group sender, which in turnshould be higher priority than the e-mail of the anonymous sender. Asanother example, if the social distance from the anonymous sender to thereceiver is shorter than the social distance from the group sender,which in turn is shorter than the social distance from the individualsender to the receiver, the priorities may be different from the exampleabove. For example, in various cases, depending upon the weighting ofthe social distance and sender priority, the e-mail from the groupsender may be prioritized over the e-mail from the anonymous sendercommunication; the e-mail of the anonymous sender may be prioritizedover the e-mail of the individual sender, the e-mail of the individualsender may be prioritized over the e-mail of the group sender, and thelike. In various embodiments, default weightings may be set, which maybe overridden by the recipient. For example, a recipient may prefer tohear from group senders rather than individual senders for a recipient'swholesale business, or the like.

Embodiments of the present invention may be applied to any number ofcommunication embodiments. For example, embodiments may be used inconjunction with any on-line shopping search system such as froogle.com,mysimon.com, or the like. In addition, embodiments may be used inconjunction with on-line shopping rating system such as epinions.com,bizrate.com, or the like. Embodiments may also be based uponbrick-and-mortar shopping systems, such as registry services provided bystores, and the like. The above embodiments may also be applied toon-line merchants such as amazon.com, bn.com, overstock.com and thelike. Additionally, as discussed above, embodiments may be applied toauction sites such as ebay.com, and the like. Accordingly, the conceptsdisclosed above are extremely valuable in a variety of applications,such as interactive “yellow pages” and directories of products andservices (e.g. Thomas Register, Martindale-Hubbell), and the like.

In the embodiments disclosed above, and in the claims below, referenceis made as to the trust relationships between two users, however, itshould be understood that the trust relationships can span more than twousers. For example, in value chains including multiple users, such as aseller, a value added reseller, and a buyer, the trust relationships ofeach party is important. This is even more significant for more complexvalue chains with multiple participants.

Further embodiments can be envisioned to one of ordinary skill in theart after reading this disclosure. In other embodiments, combinations orsub-combinations of the above disclosed invention can be advantageouslymade. The specification, accordingly, is to be regarded in anillustrative rather than a restrictive sense. It will, however, beevident that various modifications and changes may be made thereuntowithout departing from the broader spirit and scope of the invention asset forth in the claims.

1. A method to be performed in a network environment in which messagesare exchanged, comprising: receiving a message from a first user,wherein the message is intended for a second user; calculating in realtime a social distance value between the second user and the first userin a social network based on accessing relationship data for the firstuser and the second user from a random access memory of a graphingserver; evaluating a reliability factor value associated with the firstuser, wherein the reliability factor value is based at least in part onprevious messages authored by the first user, and wherein the socialdistance value and the reliability factor value are integrated togenerate a combination value; and determining whether to present themessage to the second user based on whether the combination valueexceeds a threshold value designated by the second user. 2-20.(canceled)
 21. The method of claim 1, further comprising detecting thatthe first user has limited the forwarding of the message to preventsending thereof to other users by the second user.
 22. The method ofclaim 1, wherein the reliability factor value relates to feedback datacollected for the first user.
 23. The method of claim 1, wherein thereliability factor value relates to data reflective of characteristicsassociated with a quality of service in which the first user wasinvolved.
 24. The method of claim 1, wherein the reliability factorvalue relates to data reflective of participation in a network forum inwhich the first user was involved.
 25. The method of claim 1, whereinthe reliability factor value relates to data reflective of a delivery ofgoods by the first user.
 26. The method of claim 1, wherein theintegrating of the social distance value and the reliability factorvalue includes weighting the social distance value more than thereliability factor value in generating the combination value.
 27. Themethod of claim 1, wherein message intended for the second user isprioritized based on an affinity grouping in which the second usershares a common subject matter interest with other users in the socialnetwork.
 28. The method of claim 1, wherein the reliability factor valueis retrieved from a website at which the first user posted information.29. The method of claim 1, wherein the reliability factor value is basedat least in part on a profile provided in a domain that is separate fromthe social network.
 30. The method of claim 1, further comprising:determining a social map in response to the second user logging into thesocial network, wherein the social map reflects a limited number ofusers that are chosen based on social distances between the second userand the limited number of users, and wherein the social map is furtherconfined to an absolute number of users, as designated by the seconduser.
 31. The method of claim 30, further comprising: providing a homepage to the second user in response to the second user logging into thesocial network, wherein the home page identifies a subset of usersprovided in the social map.
 32. The method of claim 1, furthercomprising: filtering out particular communications intended for thesecond user based on a geographic area characteristic of users that sentthe particular communications.
 33. The method of claim 1, furthercomprising: segmenting particular messages intended for the second userinto directories having specific social distances in relation to thesecond user.
 34. Logic encoded in non-transitory media that includescode for execution and when executed by a processor is operable toperform operations comprising: receiving a message from a first user,wherein the message is intended for a second user; calculating in realtime a social distance value between the second user and the first userin a social network based on accessing relationship data for the firstuser and the second user from a random access memory of a graphingserver; evaluating a reliability factor value associated with the firstuser, wherein the reliability factor value is based at least in part onprevious messages authored by the first user, and wherein the socialdistance value and the reliability factor value are integrated togenerate a combination value; and determining whether to present themessage to the second user based on whether the combination valueexceeds a threshold value designated by the second user.
 35. The logicof claim 34, the operations further comprising: determining a social mapin response to the second user logging into the social network, whereinthe social map reflects a limited number of users that are chosen basedon social distances between the second user and the limited number ofusers, and wherein the social map is further confined to an absolutenumber of users, as designated by the second user.
 36. The logic ofclaim 34, further comprising detecting that the first user has limitedthe forwarding of the communication to prevent sending thereof to otherusers by the second user.
 37. A computer system, comprising: a randomaccess memory; and a processor coupled to the random access memory,wherein the processor and the random access memory cooperate such thatthe computer system is configured for: receiving a message from a firstuser, wherein the message is intended for a second user; calculating inreal time a social distance value between the second user and the firstuser in a social network based on accessing relationship data for thefirst user and the second user from the random access memory; evaluatinga reliability factor value associated with the first user, wherein thereliability factor value is based at least in part on previous messagesauthored by the first user, and wherein the social distance value andthe reliability factor value are integrated to generate a combinationvalue; and determining whether to present the message to the second userbased on whether the combination value exceeds a threshold valuedesignated by the second user.
 38. The computer system of claim 37,wherein the computer system is further configured for: assessing acharge to the second user for particular messages associated with aparticular affinity group to which the second user has subscribed. 39.The computer system of claim 38, further configured for detecting thatthe first user has limited the forwarding of the message to preventsending thereof to other users by the second user.